Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

H.S.SHARMA versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


H.S.Sharma v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 14644 of 1989 [2005] RD-AH 5609 (11 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Heard Dr. Binod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishnaji Khare, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

The writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. An objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') was filed by the father of the petitioner against the proposed allotment claiming that two chak roads dividing the third chak in four parts may be removed to make it compact and the sector road be extended till the pucca road. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.2.1981 rejected the objection. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 30.8.1986. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 24.4.1989 decided the revision.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made certain adjustment and has mentioned in the operative part of his order that the revision is being allowed but he has further worsened the chak of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner that two chak roads dividing his third chak into four parts which has resulted into allotment of six chaks to him should be removed and he should be allowed a compact chak at that place has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has further been urged that by the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the original area near his private source of irrigation has been substantially reduced and the variation is more than 25% which is against the provision of the Act.

Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order but no counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in the writ petition.

I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the records.

The grievance of the petitioner that his third chak has been divided into four parts due to intervening chak road resulting into six chaks has not at all been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Section 19 of the Act mandates that the tenure-holder shall be allotted a compact chak. No reason has been assigned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for not considering the claim of the petitioner to shift the chak road in order to make his third chak compact. The allotment of more than three chaks to a tenure-holder without assigning specific reason is again violative of provision of Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner has categorically asserted that on account of intervening chak road his third chak has been bifurcated into four parts. There is no counter affidavit denying this fact. Thus the allotment of six chaks to the petitioner is violative of Section 19 of the Act.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation there is variation of more than 25% in the area of his original holding and the area allotted to him, is also not without force. Specific allegations have been made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition which are unrebutted. The facts also become clear from perusal of CH Form 23 filed as annexure-6 to the writ petition.

From the aforesaid it is clear that the allotment of chaks in favour of the petitioner is utter violation of the provision of Section 19 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner has not at all been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Though his revision was allowed but he has been placed in a still worse situation by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

In view of the aforesaid the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.4.1989 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

The writ petition stands allowed.

The dispute is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be

Decided afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made hereinabove.

However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.